The United States federal government should pursue a defensive space control strategy that emphasizes satellite hardening, replacement, redundancy and situational awareness
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- [ ] Enhancing space military capability is essential to hegemony – space superiority is key to protect American forces during conflict
- [ ] Protecting satellites key to hegemony – they are key to the global commons Denmark 2010 - Fellow with the Center for a New American Security
- [ ] Space weaponization is key to US military dominance – it prevents other nations from leveraging space dominance against US forces
Extend Solvency - Hegemony[ ] US militarization of space is critical to national security because our satellites are in danger Lewis 2005 - Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program [James A. Lewis. November 1, 2005. House Armed Service Committee, Panel on Asymmetric and Unconventional Threats Center for Strategic and International Studies. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Cr-YrlZ_4YJ:csis.org/files/media/csis/congress /ts051101_lewis.pdf+hardening+satellites&hl=en&gl=us&pid= bl&srcid=ADGEES jqa8YKzjyP3GZoZvlk1KzXGHAwK2bzuk03clno4BciLnY3pLmf12TN75rlMuAJFzw3E5JmOGq lWin0d1Ldf9UWz9NEeduREpcsvzljHCJIJUjNEHfpnuem7nvvZ7gEdyHm4&sig=AHIEtbT9LZ1I2M32TCFG4GFWgdeaoiEjEQ. Accessed June 21] Space is an area of American military advantage. No nation or group of nations now has the capability to challenge U.S. predominance in space. The basis of this predominance rests on more than one hundred satellites for remote collection of images and signals, for communications and navigation, and a ground infrastructure to process, analyze and disseminate information from space assets. The U.S. military space program is a critical component of U.S. national security. However, the current military space system, while superior to any in the world, faces new demands, new missions and new risks. Potential opponents recognize that U.S. military advantage rests in part on access to space services provided by satellites for intelligence, communications, intelligence collection, weather forecasting and navigation. Disruption of these services would degrade American military capabilities and provide a symbolic victory. We know that potential opponents either have contemplated or have efforts underway to disrupt U.S. military space capabilities. [ ] Enhancing space military capability is essential to hegemony – space superiority is key to protect American forces during conflict Hyten 2001 Director, Space Programs, Office of the Ass Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, [4 January 01. Air & Space Power Journal . A Sea of Peace or a Theater of War: Dealing with the Inevitable Conflict in Space. Lt Col John E. Hyten. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Hyten.html Accessed June 21, 2011.] Recommendation #4: The U.S. military must be prepared, across the spectrum of conflict, to take all prudent actions necessary to achieve space superiority. Just as all operational plans today consist of military campaigns to achieve air superiority, each of these plans must also include campaigns to achieve space superiority. Unless space superiority is achieved, the nation’s political and military leaders need to be cognizant of the fact that American forces would operate under greater risk if committed into such a theater of operations. Space superiority plans should consist of the appropriate application of non-lethal and lethal force applied in the appropriate medium to ensure the availability of space for U.S. and allied forces and the denial of the use of space for enemy forces. Space superiority, like that of air superiority or maritime superiority, is not something that exists all the time. Rather, it is something that must be achieved only when dealing with a specific conflict, and then must be maintained for the duration of that conflict only. Space differs from air and maritime superiority because of its unique physical characteristics. In conflict, air and maritime superiority can be achieved over the limited geographic area involved in the conflict (e.g., air superiority over the Persian Gulf, or maritime superiority in the Mediterranean Sea). Space presents a more complicated problem. Orbiting space systems have the potential to impact an enormous portion of the globe, and therefore, space superiority must be evaluated from the perspective of all of space, not just a limited theater of operations. [ ] Protecting satellites key to hegemony – they are key to the global commons Denmark 2010 - Fellow with the Center for a New American Security [By Abraham M. and Dr. James Mulvenon CNAS, Jan, Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multipolar World http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Contested %20Commons%20Capstone_0.pdf Accessed Jun 21] The United States derives great benefit from open access to these global commons, but so too does the world at large. Indeed, dependable access to the commons is the backbone of the international economy and political order, benefiting the global community in ways that few appreciate or realize. Today, over 90 percent of global trade, worth over 14 trillion dollars in 2008, travels by sea. Civil air transportation carries 2.2 billion passengers annually and 35 percent of all international trade, by value. Governments, militaries and corporations around the world rely on space for communications, imagery, and accurate positioning services, making space a 257 billion dollars industry in 2008. Financial traders in New York City use the Internet to transfer 4 trillion dollars, greater than 25 percent of America’s annual GDP, every day. 4 For the past 60 years, and especially since the end of the Cold War, America’s nearly unchallenged military advantage in the global commons has guaranteed their openness and stability. Yet, this dominance is increasingly challenged. New powers are rising, with some adopting potentially hostile strategies and doctrine. The threshold for states and non-state actors to acquire asymmetric anti-access capabilities, such as advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and cyber warfare capabilities. The decentralization of military power and expanded access to technologies once reserved for superpowers will necessarily contest America’s 60-year-old dominance over the global commons and its ability to maintain their openness. While disturbing on their own, these trends are developing concurrently with America’s growing reliance on the commons. Militarily, the United States increasingly relies on the commons to enable many aspects of its operations, from logistics, to command and control, to extended power projection. Economically, the United States depends on the global commons to provide essential services to its citizens, connect its markets to suppliers and customers overseas, and manage billions of dollars of financial transactions. [ ] Space weaponization is key to US military dominance – it prevents other nations from leveraging space dominance against US forces Kyl 2007 – US senator and Attorney. [Jon Kyl. Published on February 1, 2007. Delivered on January 29, 2007. China's Anti-Satellite Weapons and American National Security. The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Chinas-Anti-Satellite-Weapons-and-American-National-Security. Accessed June 21] We should also expect that space weapons will play a role in future combat operations against modern militaries. Speaking back in 2002, former Undersecretary of the Air Force Peter Teets asked: What will we do five years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary uses space-borne imagery collectors, commercial or homegrown, to identify and target American forces? What will we do ten years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system or perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"[9] The bottom line is this: We must not jeopardize our warfighters in the name of preserving an indefensible distinction between space and non-space weapons. If targeting an adversary's satellites allows our military to achieve victory more quickly, or at lower cost in blood, such attacks must be considered. The Chinese seem to understand this point much better than we do. So my fourth point, instead of talking about illusory arms control arrangements, is that we need to get serious about space security. The recently revised National Space Policy is a step in the right direction. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|